Search form

Draft Would Cast a Chill Over the Military

This article was originally published in the Los Angeles
Times on Octpber 16, 2002.

Although many questions about how to fight a war with Iraq and how
to manage the aftermath remain unanswered, one thing is clear: The
United States will win this battle with volunteers.

Whenever the U.S. goes to war, someone proposes a draft. That
was the case a dozen years ago in the Gulf War. It’s happening
again, most recently when Jeffrey Smith, onetime general counsel to
both the CIA and the Senate Armed Services Committee, advocated
forcing people into uniform not only to conquer Iraq but to serve
in the Peace Corps and rebuild Afghanistan. Here is why that’s a
bad idea:

The U.S. has the most powerful and effective military on Earth.
The soldiers and sailors who use high-tech weapons today are
better-educated than the draft-era force. More than 90% of Army and
Navy recruits last year had high school diplomas, as did 96% of
Marine and 99% of Air Force recruits. Recruiting was tougher in
1998 and 1999, but even then the military’s problem could have been
solved by lowering standards.

The all-volunteer force is superior in another way: The armed
services are filled with people who desire to serve, reducing
discipline problems. Those who are discontented are released. With
conscription, the services can ill afford to kick out even the
worst performers, since doing so would reward those wanting
out.

Northwestern University sociologist Charles Moskos and Paul
Glastris, editor in chief of the Washington Monthly, recognize the
need for high-quality volunteers. But they suggest a draft to bring
in sufficient numbers of recruits for support and peacekeeping
duties to “free up professional soldiers to do the fighting without
sacrificing other U.S. commitments.”

More sensible, however, would be to ask: Which commitments are
worth meeting?

For instance, no vital national interest is at stake in the
Balkans, certainly not forcing three hostile communities to forever
live together in the artificial country of Bosnia and ensuring that
Kosovo remain an autonomous part of Serbia against the wishes of
its inhabitants. Moreover, why should the U.S. rather than
Europeans undertake that? Similarly, why do 37,000 troops remain on
station in South Korea, a nation with 40 times the gross domestic
product, twice the population and a vast technological edge over
its northern antagonist?

Smith and others oppose using reserves to supplement our
volunteer forces in Iraq because that would make recruiting more
difficult. But why even have reserves if they aren’t used when
necessary?

Conscription advocates also criticize a so-called underclass
military, even though rigorous educational and test standards mean
that few of the underclass ever suit up. Although not perfectly
representative — in terms of percentage there are more blacks and
fewer Latinos in the military than in the population, for instance
— those in the services are generally from families with
middle-class incomes and social backgrounds. To be perfectly fair,
a draft would have to target poor as well as rich.

Some complain that only volunteers are being asked to die for
their country. Yet New York City firefighters volunteered to defend
their fellow citizens, and 343 of them died on Sept. 11, 2001, more
than the number of servicemen and servicewomen killed in the Gulf
War, Kosovo and the war on terrorism combined. Should only
volunteers fight fires and crime? Devote their lives to the
poor?

A free society doesn’t mean there are no shirkers, content to
benefit from the sacrifices of others. But that is the price of
freedom. Allowing a Washington elite to decide how everyone else
should spend his or her life is a dubious form of “fairness.”

Defending the United States means defending a free society built
on individual liberty. Renewing conscription would destroy the very
thing we are supposed to be protecting.